Saturday, October 03, 2015

Rep. Michael McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Friday there needs to be an emphasis on mental health, and not new gun laws, in the wake of Thursday’s shooting at a community college in Oregon.
“No gun law probably could have stopped this case. Tell me what law could have been passed to have stopped this case,” Mr. McCaul said on CNN’s “New Day.”

Wow.

After all these years, a Politician finally admits that, however it might add a great 'punch' to his next re-election campaign ... he refuses to postulate that passing new gun-control laws (which is how Politicians expect to get re-elected) would not stop "gun violence".

Those of us who have blogged for years on this theme should take heart in this simple statement.

So why expend all the time, energy, money, and effort to pass meaningless laws that will do nothing to curb the violence? Because they are incremental steps toward a bigger goal. When these policies fail, politicians will call for another round of “common sense” reforms. We’ll be told that nobody is suggesting taking away our guns. And nothing will change. And it will happen again. Slowly eroding our freedoms until there’s nothing left.

I tripped over this gun-blogger by pure serendipity a couple of days ago, and I've been back a couple of times since. The guy makes sense, he has a wicked sense of humor, and he has done his homework.

Well, (shrug), maybe it's just me, but I intend to keep track of him on my non-existent Blog Roll. You might want to wander over and check it out, too.

Friday, October 02, 2015

By - Associated Press - Thursday, October 1, 2015
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A wrongful death lawsuit filed against gun maker Remington by families of some Newtown school massacre victims has been sent from federal court back to state court, where it may have a better chance of succeeding.

This kind of suit is similar to suing GMC because a drunk in a Chevy hit a school bus full of kids.Yes, it's a tragedy, but no, GMC isn't liable because their local dealer sold a Chevy to a a person who turned out to be a drunk.Should GMC have known that the buyer was a drunk? Even this allegory is not a parellel to the Sandy Hook massacre.

Should Remington have known that a gun shop sold an AR15 knock-off to a woman who was a legal purchaser with no criminal record, that she would store that rifle in a locked gun safe, that her insane son would murder his mother and steal her rifle, and then use that rifle to assassinate children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut?

The death toll in a knife attack orchestrated by alleged “separatists” at a coal mine in northwestern China’s troubled Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region has climbed to at least 50 people—including five police officers—with as many as 50 injured, according to local security officials who say nine suspects are on the run.

While the American Government is still striving heartily to ban the private ownership of guns, 'separatists' groups in China have moved to a more primitive weapon:

as in: 'if we can't shoot ya. we'll cut ya!'.

People in America poo-poo folks who think that pistols, rifles and shotguns are valid weapons to defend American Freedoms against a totalitarian government. They say things like:

"Oh yeah, the government has tanks and planes and machine guns, and you're going to do WHAT with your puny little pistol?"

Strangely enough, governments have very little defense against outraged citizens who have any means at all to express their grievances. Look at this picture from the original article; this is the military that is being attacked by 'peasants with knives'.

The "Chinese Separatists" may be a bunch of loonies, but they may also be "the mouse that roared".

The American Revolution started with not that much more in the way of weaponry.

A former president of the college said that it has only one unarmed security officer and that the community decided against armed guards last year. “I suspect this is going to start a discussion across the country about how community colleges prepare themselves for events like this,” Joe Olson told CBS.

(emphasis added)

College and University Administrators are scrambling for a safe place in the face of an oncoming firestorm of protest against collegiate rules forbidding self-defense on campus, and at least one former Oregon Administrator has pulled his head out of his Academia to ask: "Is this going to hurt my career?"

Dear Joe, and all the oh-so-Academic-Joes who have been making life-altering decisions for your students for the past century:

Well ... yes. There probably will be a 'discussion across the country' about this. Except that the discussion has been going on for DECADES! This is merely the first indication that someone in Academia might notice it. (You sanctimonious bastards!)

The 1965 act brought in the poorest of the poor from around the globe. Non-English-speaking peasants from wildly backward cultures could be counted on to be dependent on government assistance for generations to come.

Kennedy and other Democrats swore up and down that the new immigration law would not change the country's demographics, but post-1965-act immigrants are nothing like the people who already lived here.

As Pew Research cheerfully reports, previous immigrants were "almost entirely" European. But since Kennedy's immigration act, a majority of immigrants have been from Latin America. One-quarter are from Asia. Only 12 percent of post-1965-act immigrants have been from Europe -- and they're probably Muslims.

Apparently, the "American experiment" is actually some kind of sociological trial in which we see if people who have no history of Western government can run a constitutional republic.

RTWT

The good news? Often, second generation Americans are wise to the chicanery, and want to protect their new-found country from unfettered vote-loading.

U.S. President Barack Obama was briefed on the situation and will continue to receive updates throughout the day. He pushed for a change in gun laws when he spoke to reporters about the shooting Thursday. "Our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America -- next week, or a couple months from now," he said.

__________________________________________________________________
at about 2:17 on the statement video, The President says:

It cannot be this easy for anyone who wants to inflict harm on another person to get his or her hands on a gun!

Easy?

EASY

Firearms are the most restricted, legislated-against, controlled commercial product in American history. And yet Obama bemoans that it's to EASY?
Well, for someone who has no history of mental disease, or felonious actions, it's easy. That's in keeping with the Second Amendment. But the issue isn't about guns, it's about people. As soon as we get technology which allows us to predict how people can act in unpredictable ways, we can stop this unpredictable activity. (re: Minority Report)

_____________________________________________________________

(Local sheriff statement here ... the sheriff refused to name the shooter, and rightly so)

What's important in regards to the politics of Obama's speech right now is that neither you nor I nor Obama knows anything about what sort of weapon was used and how it was obtained or the shooter's background. I don't even know his name as I type.

Thus, he is undoubtedly overreaching beyond the facts when he speaks over and over about how apparently easy and simple gun-safety laws would have prevented this, or future tragedies like this

The arrogance of our current president surpasses understanding.

I read the news about the massacre at Umpqua Community College (which by the way is pronounced "UMP" as in "Umpire" and "QUA" as in "QUALITY"), and I'm appalled once again by the societal influences which bring a person to the decision that they only way he can be made whole is to cause the slaughter of innocents.

Usually, this sort of tragedy is ended when the shooter commits suicide, and I wonder: "why the HELL didn't he just shoot himself first?"

Today, the police in Roseburg, Oregon (nice town, I've been there many times, it's only 120 miles away from my home) were both pro-active and timely. They responded to the calls quickly, found-and-fixed their target, and resolved the situation as expediently as possible. But they were too late to stop that asshole before too many people were slaughtered like lambs.

Unfortunate that there were no CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holders on the scene; they could have minimized the death toll, which was far too many innocents. I often wonder why America is so plentifully staffed with innocent lambs, and so understaffed with the sheep-dogs that a proper flock requires. We need to pay more attention to the needs of our sheep-dogs local police departments.

And we need to revisit the collegiate rules which mandate no CHL on campus in Oregon. The state laws allow CHL, but (as I've said so many times before) the colleges can make their own rules about no guns on campus, and enforce them by firing an employee who violates them, or by terminating a student who legally has the temerity to carry a firearm on campus.

... and this most recent tragedy is my fault because I am vehemently against Gun Free Zones, because that's the Happy Hunting Ground for mad men.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

(Liberals misuse the 2nd Amendment to abuse gun owners: A Case In Point)

TOTALLY ignoring the original premise of this no-think piece, I drilled down to the comments (oh, PLEASE do that .. it's as exciting as a dog-fart in an enclosed car!) and found one which just begs to be fisked!

Proof gun owners are disingenuous about their safety arguments.

1. 99% of all home invasions occur when no one is home. A gun will not protect your property when you are not home. Insurance companies will not lower your insurance rate if you own a gun because owning a gun has no actuary impact on property protection.

2. Insurance companies have real data on what protects you: lights, alarms and other safety measures. The combined sum total which costs less than the price of 3 guns. Insurance companies will lower your home owners policy if you put the recommended home protection safety measures in place.

Apparently, the fact that gun owners who are home owners are not at home 100% of the time is a valid argument against firearms possession to protect yourself, your property and your family when you (or your family) ARE at home!

" .... everybody (who) woke up this morning, or heard it last night, felt a pain of anguish, and it’s time that our criminal justice system and the laws as it relates to access to guns and the penalties for using 'em reflect the values of the people of the city of Chicago."

(... and ..)

At least 2,300 people have been shot in Chicago this year alone, according to the Chicago Tribune. According to their analysis, that's roughly 400 more incidents than during the same period in 2014. Homicides are currently up 21 percent in 2015, with the past two weekends pointing to a noticeable increase in gun-related violence.

The Mayor of Chicago is saying that ... private ownership of firearms is almost entirely illegal in Chicago, and yet there are too many guns? And the rate of SIC ("Shot In Chicago" rate) is too high?

On the contrary; I would say that this grim statistic EXACTLY "... reflect(s) the values of the people of the City of Chicago..."

I realize this is a tired bromide that I've been touting for YEARS, but I'll say it again:

The SICin Chicago is irrationally high.

The democratic leadership (pusillanimous mayors) of Chicago have historically held its citizens in an iron fist which denies them the right to defend themselves, by dint of their draconian laws against private ownership of firearms. As a consequence, honest citizens pose no threat to armed gang-bangers who roam the streets at will. The police in Chicago doubtless includes many honest cops who only want to clean up the town ... but they can't do it by themselves.

Generations of Chicago Mayors have ensured the victim-hood of their constituents by denying the right to self-defense. (Last count; there was only ONE gun shop within the city limits, and rumor has it that that business has been closed due to excessive municipal regulations.)

Nobody is working toward making the citizenry of Chicago self-supportive,
At the same time, nobody (read: the office of the mayor and everyone under his control) has recognized that their police force is able to combat the crime-in-the-streets culture which has been promulgated because gang-bangers KNOW that when they fire a shot ... nobody in the streets will be defending themselves, except the other gang-bangers.

The solution is so obvious, the only reason it has not been implemented is that the politicians want a population of dependent serfs to rule, rather than a population of citizens to cherish.

There's a wall of gun-laws between honest citizens and their right to defend themselves. And yet the Mayor continues to whine about 'statistics' (and demand even more restrictive gun-control laws) rather than to allow honest citizens to defend themselves.

As the saying goes:

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

Mister Mayor, you are the problem.

Please either do your job, or do the right thing by exiting your office so an honest officer can lead,